4 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Do you even know the meaning of the word 'potential'?

It means "having qualities and abilities that will lead to future success".

Are you telling me we haven't got 'potential'? I would have thought it's the very thing we are now showing in spades.

It's not mutually exclusive with a winning culture.

Well then make it that way

I didn't think he was any worse than his brother.

9 minutes ago, DavidNeitz9 said:

Oscar was listed at 94 kilos in the MFC season guide, not 82, the mfc website never update weight

23 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Do you even know the meaning of the word 'potential'?

It means "having qualities and abilities that will lead to future success".

Are you telling me we haven't got 'potential'? I would have thought it's the very thing we are now showing in spades.

It's not mutually exclusive with a winning culture.

You and others have been sucked in by our easy wins against bad teams like GC and Brisbane. Our losses to Saints and Dogs were more telling as to where we are at. Sure we have a list of promising young players, but we are a long way off being a good team. We can't rest on our laurels with this list, because you are kidding yourself if you think it will lead us to future success (winning finals regularly).

28 minutes ago, Sir Why You Little said:

Well then make it that way

I would have though we're well on the way from potential to success. That is unless you've either been asleep for the last two years, or have an underlying natural pessimism.

It's easy to be a keyboard warrior here and continually be negative or slag off on players like Oscar McDonald, who has played four games. The delusion is thinking that by writing tough stuff on here you'll actually make a difference to the team and club. Earth to SWYL ... this is the internet, not reality.

Time to get positive and get with the program. See where we're going and not just where we've come from.

5 minutes ago, mo64 said:

We can't rest on our laurels with this list

Who said we were?

8 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Who said we were?

When someone says that winning isn't important now, they must think that everything will just click into gear over time. History in sport has told me that that's a phallacy.

1 minute ago, mo64 said:

When someone says that winning isn't important now, they must think that everything will just click into gear over time. History in sport has told me that that's a phallacy.

Who said winning isn't important now? Winning is always an objective.

On 23/05/2016 at 11:37 AM, mauriesy said:

I don't think we've reached that stage yet. Winning is great, but our window based on the age of our list opens in 2-3 years, and in the meantime development is still as important as winning.

 

 

2 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Who said winning isn't important now? Winning is always an objective.

You. This whole debate is about whether O. Mac should be given development time in the seniors. My argument is that he's not ready for AFL football and looks out of his depth, and his selection ahead of Dunn is all about the future, not the next game. 

Play OMac on Westhoff this weekend.

It is easy to believe winning is just around the corner. We need to beat the Saints, the Power and other mid tier teams to consolidate any progress.

Coming close second to good teams rather than losing by 10 goals is a relief but that happens occasionally every year.

Im hopeful and believe Im with the program but agree that "potential" is a word that gives me the tom-[censored].

If you dont learn from the past you are doomed to failure.

No team can ignore the future, even if they are playing for a grand final.

I didn't say winning wasn't important, I said at our stage development is just as important. You seem to erroneously think you can't concentrate on both.

We've got about a 30-70 chance of playing finals this year with a young list. Maybe 70-30 next year. That says to me that we need to keep on concentrating on developing players with the potential to take our list to the ultimate level. 

If we are to win a premiership it will most likely be when players like McDonald have got 50 games or more experience. Or do you think we'll win one with Dunn, Grimes and Terlich? We're crying out for another good tall KPB, and they aren't it.

10 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

No team can ignore the future, even if they are playing for a grand final.

I didn't say winning wasn't important, I said at our stage development is just as important. You seem to erroneously think you can't concentrate on both.

We've got about a 30-70 chance of playing finals this year with a young list. Maybe 70-30 next year. That says to me that we need to keep on concentrating on developing players with the potential to take our list to the ultimate level. 

If we are to win a premiership it will most likely be when players like McDonald have got 50 games or more experience. Or do you think we'll win one with Dunn, Grimes and Terlich? We're crying out for another good tall KPB, and they aren't it.

You are overrating our list.

And your last paragraph is the same s##t I was reading back in the Bailey days, when everyone thought it was a good idea to dump all our senior players because they "wouldn't be in our next premiership team". It was a cr#p argument then and it's a cr#p argument now.

Who says? I haven't even rated it.

However, the other day I was watching a replay of our 2012 'miracle' match against Essendon, when they were top and we were bottom. We were playing Nicholson (1 Brownlow vote, btw), Morton, Moloney, Magner, Blease, Sellar, Clark, Tapscott, Howe, Mackenzie, Sylvia and Garland as a forward, coached by Mark Neeld.

If you don't think our list has improved from that time 4 years ago, you must only be able to see the clouds from the silver lining.

2 minutes ago, mauriesy said:

Who says? I haven't even rated it.

However, the other day I was watching a replay of our 2012 'miracle' match against Essendon, when they were top and we were bottom. We were playing Nicholson (1 Brownlow vote, btw), Morton, Moloney, Magner, Blease, Sellar, Clark, Tapscott, Howe, Mackenzie, Sylvia and Garland as a forward, coached by Mark Neeld.

If you don't think our list has improved from that time 4 years ago, you must only be able to see the clouds from the silver lining.

You just stated that we're a 70-30 chance to make the finals next year. That's overrating us IMO.

Of course I think our list has improved, but it's only relevant if you're measuring it against the opposition.

And you're also measuring players careers that have finished (2012 list) against players careers that are essentially just starting. At the time, did you think that Morton, Moloney, Bleaes, Clark, Tapscott, Howe, Sylvia and garland would turn out how they did? Of course not.

1 hour ago, mo64 said:

You and others have been sucked in by our easy wins against bad teams like GC and Brisbane. Our losses to Saints and Dogs were more telling as to where we are at. Sure we have a list of promising young players, but we are a long way off being a good team. We can't rest on our laurels with this list, because you are kidding yourself if you think it will lead us to future success (winning finals regularly).

Resting On Your Laurels

 

Caesar: 'Ere, where are my laurels? [hitches up his arse and finds them on his seat] Oh, I've been resting on them.

This classic gag from the film "Carry On Cleo" in which Kenneth Williams puts on a masterful performance as Roman emporer Julius Caesar, 

21 minutes ago, mo64 said:

You just stated that we're a 70-30 chance to make the finals next year. That's overrating us IMO.

Of course I think our list has improved, but it's only relevant if you're measuring it against the opposition.

And you're also measuring players careers that have finished (2012 list) against players careers that are essentially just starting. At the time, did you think that Morton, Moloney, Bleaes, Clark, Tapscott, Howe, Sylvia and garland would turn out how they did? Of course not.

We're currently 5-4 with a percentage of 113% after 9 rounds in 9th. That's a fair sample size in anyone's book mo64. Granted, it might not be in yours if you think height is irrelevant in todays game!

We've played well and probably lucky to clinch the points v GWS. We've beaten Richmond and Collingwood - granted not at their best or strongest - but we played well doing so. We went toe to toe with the Doggies and they had the better of us in the middle and put our defence under immense pressure. We've taken North right to the line in a high scoring game.

Where we are at right now - I don't see why we would not be a 70-30 chance of making finals next year, or how that would be seen as overrating us. If the club continued on the upward curve of development and gave young players consecutive block of games - such as Wagner, Hunt, McDonald, NIBS, Kent etc - how else would the club seek to evolve in what it wants to evolve into? Sometimes it's a balancing act.

Petracca said it himself, he thought differently as to how AFL was going to be like - it was the speed of the game that was the biggest difference for him. He admittedly thought he was off the pace in his first game v St.Kilda. Then he knew what to expect, and what to take into the next game. And so on. It's called developing.

How else would the likes of O.McDonald find that out at Casey? We need to strengthen the defence by experience in order to evolve in what we seek. 

58 minutes ago, billy2803 said:

Play OMac on Westhoff this weekend.

How about no.

He is not ready.

He found it hard even spoiling the superstar known as 'Freeman' in the contests he was in against him.

Imagine what Westhoff would do to him.

O-mac was miles off the pace last weekend regardless of what Saty and co continue to say.

 

 

7 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

How about no.

He is not ready.

He found it hard even spoiling the superstar known as 'Freeman' in the contests he was in against him.

Imagine what Westhoff would do to him.

O-mac was miles off the pace last weekend regardless of what Saty and co continue to say.

 

 

Yeah, in his first game back in the seniors since round one, and his fourth game overall... you're one of many that can't see the selectors are giving players an extended run to come up to speed with the game. Clearly they are wearing the odd mistake as long as they are seeing players understand the role and continue to improve. If oscar had such a shocker, he still managed 18 disposals, 3 rebound 50s and a few intercepts playing on the last line of defence....

22 minutes ago, H_T said:

We're currently 5-4 with a percentage of 113% after 9 rounds in 9th. That's a fair sample size in anyone's book mo64. Granted, it might not be in yours if you think height is irrelevant in todays game!

I said O. Mac's height isn't relevant for a key backman. The best key backman of the past 20 years was Matty Scarlett, who was 192cm. Height doesn't stop a good key backman from winning a contest. A footy brain goes along way in the AFL.

Someone else pointed out that the only difference in our wins and losses compared to last year was the away win against GC (a basket case). We beat Richmond, Collingwood, GWS and Brisbane in Melbourne last year and this year. We beat the Dogs at the G last year, but lost to them this year.

Let's see how we go from now on. We still have to play top 8 teams like Hawthorn x 2, Swans, Geelong, Adelaide and WCE. If we don't win at least 11 games this year with the good injury run we've had, I fail to see how we all of a sudden become a 70% chance of making the finals next year.

47 minutes ago, Generation dee said:

Yeah, in his first game back in the seniors since round one, and his fourth game overall... you're one of many that can't see the selectors are giving players an extended run to come up to speed with the game. Clearly they are wearing the odd mistake as long as they are seeing players understand the role and continue to improve. If oscar had such a shocker, he still managed 18 disposals, 3 rebound 50s and a few intercepts playing on the last line of defence....

Clearly Dunn is out of favour for reasons I can only guess. There's no other explanation as to why our most senior and experienced defender is playing at Casey. Which means another KPD, (Oscar in this case) has been given the nod of approval. We have no other KPD which points to a lack of depth in this area. 

Out of all areas on the ground, our back six is and has been the most unsettled unit of all. Why is this?

It is thanks to Garland and Dunn's inability to play defensive roles consistently and to a satisfactory standard which has seen them in and and out of the side. Dunn was again overlooked on the weekend and the coaches favoured O-Mac to take the other key defensive post alongside his brother and Garland. The fact that the coaches chose to bring Oscar in (who was hardly banging the door down at Casey) over Dunn says much more about what is going on with Dunn and also highlights our lack of key position depth. 

Due to Dunn and Garland's fall from grace coupled with an obvious lack of key position defensive depth playing at Casey, we've seen that this is the only area of the ground whereby players have been promoted from Casey to our senior side without necessarily having to 'play out of their skin'. Wagner and O-Mac are both examples. Compare this to our midfield and forward-line where we clearly have some great depth building and you'll find that players like Petracca and ANB have had to play to an extremely high standard for a number of weeks to get a look in. In seasons past, they would have both been playing well before their form at Casey warranted a senior call up.

I can understand why O-Mac was given a game in this case based on what I've just said, just as I understood why Wagner was promoted earlier in the season. 

However, it's clear as day that last weekend he was out of his depth. He wasn't ready. He was overawed. You cannot argue that. I don't care that he still managed 18 disposals and three rebound 50's. We won by 63 points. We were in control, and Brisbane's ball movement was awful. Do you watch the game man? Or do you just consistently defend players time after [censored] time like Saty?

I will be absolutely gobsmacked if Oscar keeps his spot this week.

 

5 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Clearly Dunn is out of favour for reasons I can only guess. There's no other explanation as to why our most senior and experienced defender is playing at Casey. Which means another KPD, (Oscar in this case) has been given the nod of approval. We have no other KPD which points to a lack of depth in this area. 

Out of all areas on the ground, our back six is and has been the most unsettled unit of all. Why is this?

It is thanks to Garland and Dunn's inability to play defensive roles consistently and to a satisfactory standard which has seen them in and and out of the side. Dunn was again overlooked on the weekend and the coaches favoured O-Mac to take the other key defensive post alongside his brother and Garland. The fact that the coaches chose to bring Oscar in (who was hardly banging the door down at Casey) over Dunn says much more about what is going on with Dunn and also highlights our lack of key position depth. 

Due to Dunn and Garland's fall from grace coupled with an obvious lack of key position defensive depth playing at Casey, we've seen that this is the only area of the ground whereby players have been promoted from Casey to our senior side without necessarily having to 'play out of their skin'. Wagner and O-Mac are both examples. Compare this to our midfield and forward-line where we clearly have some great depth building and you'll find that players like Petracca and ANB have had to play to an extremely high standard for a number of weeks to get a look in. In season's past, they would have both been playing well before their form at Casey warranted a senior call up.

I can understand why O-Mac was given a game in this case based on what I've just said, just as I understood why Wagner was promoted earlier in the season. 

However, it's clear as day that last weekend he was out of his depth. He wasn't ready. He was overawed. You cannot argue that. I don't care that he still managed 18 disposals and three rebound 50's. We won by 63 points. We were in control, and Brisbane's ball movement was awful. Do you watch the game man? Or do you just consistently defend players time after [censored] time like Saty?

 

So, are you saying we shouldn't be playing an "out of depth" OMac, but instead should be playing Dunn and Garland, the ones with an "inability to play defensive roles consistently"?

You're arguing against yourself, STMJ.

6 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Clearly Dunn is out of favour for reasons I can only guess. There's no other explanation as to why our most senior and experienced defender is playing at Casey. Which means another KPD, (Oscar in this case) has been given the nod of approval. We have no other KPD which points to a lack of depth in this area. 

Out of all areas on the ground, our back six is and has been the most unsettled unit of all. Why is this?

It is thanks to Garland and Dunn's inability to play defensive roles consistently and to a satisfactory standard which has seen them in and and out of the side. Dunn was again overlooked on the weekend and the coaches favoured O-Mac to take the other key defensive post alongside his brother and Garland. The fact that the coaches chose to bring Oscar in (who was hardly banging the door down at Casey) over Dunn says much more about what is going on with Dunn and also highlights our lack of key position depth. 

Due to Dunn and Garland's fall from grace coupled with an obvious lack of key position defensive depth playing at Casey, we've seen that this is the only area of the ground whereby players have been promoted from Casey to our senior side without necessarily having to 'play out of their skin'. Wagner and O-Mac are both examples. Compare this to our midfield and forward-line where we clearly have some great depth building and you'll find that players like Petracca and ANB have had to play to an extremely high standard for a number of weeks to get a look in. In season's past, they would have both been playing well before their form at Casey warranted a senior call up.

I can understand why O-Mac was given a game in this case based on what I've just said, just as I understood why Wagner was promoted earlier in the season. 

 

I will be absolutely gobsmacked if Oscar keeps his spot this week.

I agree with your view on Dunn. He is not the same player as last year. Last year I thought it was his best year at the club. I agree re: our lack of depth. 

I have no idea what is going on with Dunn's drop off in form.

I highlighted in another post re: Petracca's first game v StKilda and how shocked he was to the speed and how he felt so off the pace. I can see that with Oscar v Lions - definitely. I could see them giving him perhaps another game v Port. I just think the FD would want to show confidence in him - as they have with other players like Wagner (v North). 

I think they'll be smart with him, it could be a block of two games before the big ones v Haw, Coll, Syd. We then have our bye and they may give him another stint. 

 

2 hours ago, mauriesy said:

I would have though we're well on the way from potential to success. That is unless you've either been asleep for the last two years, or have an underlying natural pessimism.

It's easy to be a keyboard warrior here and continually be negative or slag off on players like Oscar McDonald, who has played four games. The delusion is thinking that by writing tough stuff on here you'll actually make a difference to the team and club. Earth to SWYL ... this is the internet, not reality.

Time to get positive and get with the program. See where we're going and not just where we've come from.

Who said i was slagging off Oscar?

But this club has been hiding behind the word "Potential" for over a decade. 

Even this year, losing to Essendrug..

Players have to get better as does the club

Things are being done. But we are far from there. Oscar has a big job to hold his spot

i wish him well, but it is no guarantee..

26 minutes ago, stevethemanjordan said:

Clearly Dunn is out of favour for reasons I can only guess. There's no other explanation as to why our most senior and experienced defender is playing at Casey. Which means another KPD, (Oscar in this case) has been given the nod of approval. We have no other KPD which points to a lack of depth in this area. 

Out of all areas on the ground, our back six is and has been the most unsettled unit of all. Why is this?

It is thanks to Garland and Dunn's inability to play defensive roles consistently and to a satisfactory standard which has seen them in and and out of the side. Dunn was again overlooked on the weekend and the coaches favoured O-Mac to take the other key defensive post alongside his brother and Garland. The fact that the coaches chose to bring Oscar in (who was hardly banging the door down at Casey) over Dunn says much more about what is going on with Dunn and also highlights our lack of key position depth. 

Due to Dunn and Garland's fall from grace coupled with an obvious lack of key position defensive depth playing at Casey, we've seen that this is the only area of the ground whereby players have been promoted from Casey to our senior side without necessarily having to 'play out of their skin'. Wagner and O-Mac are both examples. Compare this to our midfield and forward-line where we clearly have some great depth building and you'll find that players like Petracca and ANB have had to play to an extremely high standard for a number of weeks to get a look in. In seasons past, they would have both been playing well before their form at Casey warranted a senior call up.

I can understand why O-Mac was given a game in this case based on what I've just said, just as I understood why Wagner was promoted earlier in the season. 

However, it's clear as day that last weekend he was out of his depth. He wasn't ready. He was overawed. You cannot argue that. I don't care that he still managed 18 disposals and three rebound 50's. We won by 63 points. We were in control, and Brisbane's ball movement was awful. Do you watch the game man? Or do you just consistently defend players time after [censored] time like Saty?

I will be absolutely gobsmacked if Oscar keeps his spot this week.

 

I was at the game, sitting next to the family of one of our brightest young players. He made mention to me various times during the game how well he thought oscar had been playing. I've since watched the replay as well. 

I don't argue with you on our lack of depth down back, especially in regards to dunn and until recently garland being overlooked. Do you think the "diamond defence" has had an impact on this? Perhaps the game plan doesn't revolve around the 4 members of the DD to be winning big numbers of the ball. Is the role of these 4 purely to defend, and kill the contest until the midfield get back to support? Perhaps that's why we have 2 aggressive half backs who run/zone off. We clearly haven't got that aspect perfect yet, be it about personnel, positioning or structure as we have leaked goals out the back in every game this far.

Do i personally think oscar played the perfect game? Absolutely not. But watching the game live and since watching the replay, I think he showed a lot of promise in his position. Certainly enough to work with longer term, and highlighting the fact he has been selected twice this year either side of his injury/concussion, clearly the coaches do as well. If you watch the replay again looking at what oscar got right and what he showed he can contribute, as opposed to highlighting his defensive errors, even you might be able to see why he is in the team. 

It's not about defending players or any of the other irrelevant stuff you have questioned me on, it's about me seeing the game analyzing what is working and what isn't. 2 weeks ago I would have hoped never to see garland play again however on Sunday I thought he was one of our more solid defenders. Again, a player who has had 3 games to readjust to what is expected of him and the role he is to play.